Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 06:40:34PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: >> 2.1 Multiple advocates >> ---------------------- [...] > We discussed this a bit on IRC, and feedback seemed positive, so I'll > comment here as well. I don't think having multiple advocates solves > anything; if the problem is that you have a large pool of people acting as > poor advocates, then requiring them to get *two* bad advocates is only > slightly more challenging than getting one.
Actually, with the current "bad" advocates, this would really improve the situation. > It would be better if we could have clear guidelines for advocates, to cover > the gap between what AMs are expecting of incoming NMs and who advocates are > actually advocating; and if necessary, to disqualify certain DDs from > advocating if they consistently abuse the system by ignoring these > guidelines. *sigh* Like the expulsion process, this would have the disadvantage of singling out some developers and saying that they've done a bad job - though it's (at least partially) true, it's a reason for yet another flamewar. We have seen this with the expulsions - they had no success, but were still a reason for long, pointless threads. Marc -- BOFH #66: bit bucket overflow
pgpqgl73pMbyd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
